Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
How can you tell how many pages there are, there might be a hundred pages between page 3 and 4, there is after all no evidence that such pages do not exist.....
 
Thor 2 said:
The world famous theoretical physicist and cosmologist my have just ignored his scientific training on this one and just read some tea leaves, or some other woo he had on hand. Can't know these things for sure can you?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Cite the paper that shows there is no time prior to the Big Bang.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Thanks it's good to know that Hawking doesn't actually believe the stupid crap being attributed to him in this thread and really does know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

He did make the case that there was no time before the big bang.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Cite the paper that shows there is no time prior to the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

You mean other than Hawking's book?

"No time prior to the Big Bang" is sort of an oversimplification of the concept. The singularity that comprised the state of the universe at the Big Bang did not exhibit the behavior of the universe that came after it, including the notion of time as we reckon it. That's why physicists are careful to avoid the impression that time exists separately from what got started with the Big Bang. They do not avoid the concept of "before the Big Bang." To physics it's simply irrelevant, since nothing we observe in our universe is a consequence of anything that precedes the Big Bang. As we have learned, non-observance is tantamount to non-existence. The wedge being driven in this thread is trying to rewrite modern cosmology as something like a universe in a jar, then speculating what might be the conditions where the jar lives.
 
psionl0 said:
That is a "because Hawking" argument. If you don't know how he arrived at his conclusions then you can't say if his methods were scientific or not.

As are others with a great deal more knowledge of science than you possess. They have examined the theories he used to arrive at his conclusion in fine detail in this thread.
Click to expand...

Thor 2 said:
Oh yes how silly of me.:o

The world famous theoretical physicist and cosmologist my have just ignored his scientific training on this one and just read some tea leaves, or some other woo he had on hand. Can't know these things for sure can you?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

The sources of Hawking's statement was touched upon in the op of this thread:

"Hawking's answer — compiled from decades of prior interviews, essays and speeches with the help of his family, colleagues and the Steven Hawking Estate — should come as no surprise to readers who have followed his work, er, religiously."

The sources were expanded upon in the article linked in the op and, I fully expect, explained in detail in the book itself. Hawking has never been known to make unsupported statements and I seriously doubt that he has done so in this case.
 
JayUtah said:
You mean other than Hawking's book?
Click to expand...


I mean what I said FFS. Cite the freaking science.


It's kind of a moot point though since kellyb has just cited Hawking not actually being as stupid as people are making him out to be. So there's really not point in my question. Hawking doesn't hold the opinions people are claming, so therefore no need to cite a paper that doesn't actually exist.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Here is one from the line of social work:
https://www.bemidjistate.edu/academ...al/issue17/articles/wulfekuehler_heidrun.html

That is 2008.
Click to expand...
Now you are claiming philosophy trumps biology when it comes to evolution?:boggled:

Try this, it'll give you a better idea of that huge gap in your knowledge of the subject. I'm sorry there are so many technical terms in the paper. I had to look a lot of them up given there is so much philosophy theory discussed and that's not my area of expertise.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Morality and Evolutionary Biology

It's an in-depth analysis of how biology leads to morality while including theory on multiple ways that might occur. For example, does a simple model of biological altruism explain altruism or is it more complicated than that? Seems to me to be an article that seeks to keep philosophy relevant as more and more biology is discovered about how our brains make moral judgements. IOW if you know the evolutionary biology, what are the next pieces before one gets to the final result. I can go with that.

Last paragraph:
Thus, although the evolutionary story fits naturally with a merely non-cognitivist metaethical view, it may fit equally well with a cognitivist view. If one rejects the existence of moral truths, the latter would then lead to an error theory (Mackie 1977). But as discussed in section 4.1, it is far from clear how much support evolutionary biology itself lends to moral anti-realism or irrealism. It is consistent with plausible evolutionary stories that although our capacities for normative guidance originally evolved for reasons that had nothing to do with moral truths as such, we now regularly employ them to deliberate about and to communicate moral truths. So all three metaethical views discussed here—expressivism, error theory and moral realism—remain on the table.
Click to expand...
 
JoeMorgue said:
How exactly one judges "good" or "bad" philosophy or tells when one is doing philosophy well or poorly is another one of those questions I keep screaming into the void in these discussions never to have an answer.
Click to expand...
You might also like the paper I cited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom